Calls to boycott Arizona are spreading like a virus

[Nanci]

How about the other side of the coin? Why are providers of tax supported services not allowed (or required!) to see proof of legal status when signing people up for services such as school, medical benefits (of course we must provide emergency care whenever needed, but after a patient is stable, they could be deported if not legal), food stamps, welfare, or any other tax supported benefit you can think of. Those are things that one voluntarily signs up for.

Because access to those things is apparently not dependent on citizenship?

 

[JoelMOC]

>>>>>>>>>>"who sat next to a painting of the Virgin Mary affixed with a sign<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

How funny!!! Lets fight immigration laws with the power of the virgin mary. Divine power to the rescue.

 

[kathylove]

"Though I am thoroughly sure that those in office will interpret it to benefit their sole agenda and not the US citizens they are suppose to represent."

That's FOR SURE!! Seems like the words have been bent so much by whomever is in charge that it sometimes really takes some imagination to figure out how they arrived at the conclusion that many laws are based on. This interpretation of "invasion" seems a lot less of a stretch than past interpretations of various parts of our Constitution!

 

[kathylove]

"Because access to those things is apparently not dependent on citizenship?"

Apparently - but why not? Those freebies needn't be based only on citizenship, but why not at least based on legal authority to even be present in this country? If current laws were being enforced, employers would be punished for employing those without the proper authority (visa, citizenship, green card, etc,) to seek employment. Presumably, that is to encourage illegals to either become legal, or to leave, or maybe, to go on welfare or seek other government assistance? I would like to know the reasoning behind that, if reason was actually involved, that is.

 

[jpccusa]

If reason was involved, and with the technology currently available, it would be a piece of cake to create a counterfeit proof social security card (for employment) and ID (real id?), or perhaps even a combination of both.

Proper counterfeit proof identification is a matter of national security.

More info on Real ID: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REAL_ID_Act

 

[wade]

If reason was involved, and with the technology currently available, it would be a piece of cake to create a counterfeit proof social security card

The US Treasury may disagree with that. They have spent millions trying to produce a counterfeit proof dollar bill.

 

[jpccusa]

A dollar bill it is not something unique to each individual as a counterfeit proof SSC would be. No comparison there.

 

[wade]

Of course there is a comparison. Give each person a dollar bill with their SS number on it instead of a serial number. My point was that nothing is counterfeit proof. You make it valuable enough and someone will figure out how to fake it.

 

[jpccusa]

Make it difficult enough to counterfeit and the price to do so would create a product with no market for it, specially if we are talking about fake documents for illegal immigrants.

I agree with you that nothing is counterfeit proof. Bin Laden would be able to afford some of those very expensive documents for his suicide bombers, but at least the illegal immigrants problem would diminish considerably.

 

[tsst]

... I would like to know the reasoning behind that, if reason was actually involved, that is.

Very simply put Kathy, those illegals sway the vote of the legal immigrant community. As with most if not all politicians they want that swing vote. Take 15 million illegals if they impact 2 or 3 legal voters that's 45 million potential votes for whomever is willing to sellout a large portion of the US citizenry to keep illegals happily getting their freebies.

 

[kathylove]

Unfortunately, whether we are talking about freebies for illegals, or banning pythons, it generally boils down to what will get the most votes. The arguments and proposals usually have very little to do with logic, or what will ACTUALLY benefit the most citizens. Very sad! Not sure what to do about it, though.

Seems like the most important thing to do is to convince the LEGAL immigrant citizens (the ones who can actually vote), that THEIR lot is cast with taxpaying citizens, whether immigrants or native born. And that freebies for illegals comes out of THEIR pockets, not JUST from some unknown "rich" person's pockets. I wonder if any of the groups crusading against illegal immigration are actually courting the LEGAL citizens and residents from those countries, maybe even in their own languages? Are they trying to explain to them that it is in their own best interests to stem the tide? Or have they given up on the idea of convincing them to use logic instead of emotion?

 

[wade]

Make it difficult enough to counterfeit and the price to do so would create a product with no market for it, specially if we are talking about fake documents for illegal immigrants.

I agree with you that nothing is counterfeit proof. Bin Laden would be able to afford some of those very expensive documents for his suicide bombers, but at least the illegal immigrants problem would diminish considerably.

That is all true JP, no question about it. But that brings us back to the original problem, the documents are of no value to anyone if nobody asks to see them, which is the case in Arizona right now.

 

[jpccusa]

Well, every employer would be required to see that document, but that is if the documents in question would become reality. You are mixing what is and what could be.

Like I said, AZ SHOULD focus on enforcing everyone to carry proof of ID all the time, and not asking for proof of legal status "upon suspicion."

 

[wstphal]

How about the other side of the coin? Why are providers of tax supported services not allowed (or required!) to see proof of legal status when signing people up for services such as 1 school, 2 medical benefits (of course we must provide emergency care whenever needed, but after a patient is stable, they could be deported if not legal), 3 food stamps, 4 welfare, or any other tax supported benefit you can think of. Those are things that one voluntarily signs up for. Without availability of those services, many of those those who are here illegally may decide to leave. I would probably exempt police protection (checking ID when reporting crime) because you want people to report crimes. But I suspect that illegals are already afraid to do that because of fear of discovery.

I put numerals into the quote so I could take them one at a time.

1 Many times, the children ARE citizens; and in the case of illegal resident children, the general consensus, right or wrong, is that we are better off educating those children than having them not be in school, given that we aren't likely to deport them.

2 Actually, this is quite contentious. A hospital in FL is embroiled in a mega-lawsuit over deporting after stabilizing. They admitted a brain-injured illegal immigrant over a year ago (it might be several years ago now), did all the right things, then could not send him to a rehab/nursing home because he is an undocumented person. So he stayed in the hospital for months. Finally they flew him back to his country of origin at their own expense, and are now being sued for having done so. So health care institutions & workers want nothing to do with this one. The second issue is that if health care checks IDs, undocumented individuals with contagious diseases will not seek care until they collapse, and by then, they will have exposed/infected many more people. The poster child disease for this is tuberculosis, which is quite common in the undocumented population.

3 Food stamps, again, the issue is that SNAP benefits help nourish children, and the children are NOT responsible for their parent(s) decision to come to or stay in the US illegally, and we don't want children dying of starvation becaue of their parents illegal actions.

4 I think they do check before issuing AFDC benefits etc.

 

[kathylove]

If the kids ARE citizens, then they are entitled to all of those things. But the strange thing is that I have heard the argument before about educating those who are not citizens so they will be able to get a job. But legally, US employers are not allowed to hire them when they do graduate. (Of course, it is not enforced much of the time). So what jobs are we educating the illegal kids for? The jobs that US employers are not legally allowed to offer them? And then we punish the employers for hiring them, if we get around to enforcing that particular law?

What is morally right and logical often has no bearing on what is legal or illegal - and THAT is often the biggest problem! The whole medical case you quoted is proof of that. What is morally wrong with treating a person (for free!) who is here illegally, and only after treatment, sending them back to where they are a legal citizen / resident? I understand why the medical profession doesn't want to deal with the legalities and lawsuits - they shouldn't HAVE to deal with ridiculous lawsuits that make no sense. Unfortunately, the litigation in many areas of healthcare (many of which have nothing to do with illegal immigrants) is part of why our whole healthcare system is unsustainable as it is.

It is this total disconnect with reality when making new laws, and in some of the crazy lawsuits we see, that I have a lot of trouble with. We have laws and policies in many areas that are in total conflict with other laws and policies concerning the same subjects. It all adds up to a lot of unsustainable use of resources that I fear we are now seeing the consequences of. As I write this, I am watching a documentary on the History Channel about the aging and failing of our infrastructure - roads, bridges, levees, power grid, etc. While we are busy deciding whether we should educate illegal resident kids of illegal immigrants (just one small example that I was thinking of - not even a scratch on the iceberg) so that employers can eventually illegally employ them and politicians can get more votes, our whole country and way of life seems to be collapsing around us. Many things that we spend megabucks on just make no sense to me at all, and often seem to accomplish the exact opposite of what most of us really want. This does not bode well for the future.

We REALLY need to acknowledge that our resources ARE limited, and decide how to prioritize what we REALLY think is important. Not so long ago, many Americans were arrogant enough to think that our resources, power, and influence was pretty much limitless, and we didn't seem to feel there was a need to prioritize anything - just do it all. If we don't VERY SOON get some coherent policies and plans in action to work in an organized and focused fashion on our most important concerns, and decide that others are not important enough to waste resources on at this time, then the future does not look very bright to me. Such logic is not likely to get as many votes as passionate pleas for emotional causes. Thus, I think we each need to be thinking about what to do for our own futures as individuals, families, and small groups who care about each other ("tribes"). I don't have too much faith in the government to do the right thing.

 

[wstphal]

If the kids ARE citizens, then they are entitled to all of those things. But the strange thing is that I have heard the argument before about educating those who are not citizens so they will be able to get a job.

Personally, I think educating children who are here illegally is more about keeping them off the streets by warehousing them in schools, than it is about helping them get a job. But that's my cynical view.

Also, even if we do deport them, if they have received and actually learned the material, they are better off back home, because they can read, write, etc. They may be ahead of their peers back home, behind, or equal, but they are better off than if we let them grow up with no education, THEN rounded them up and sent them back.

I think the ethical issue, for ME, not necessarily for everyone, is that children should NOT be punished for their parents' stupidity, illegal actions, etc. They are CHILDREN and didn't have a choice. So I feel like we as a society should provide some minimum for them because it isn't their fault or their choice they are in the situation they are in. Once they're adults, I don't think we own them anything, though.

 

[jpccusa]

Thus, I think we each need to be thinking about what to do for our own futures as individuals, families, and small groups who care about each other ("tribes"). I don't have too much faith in the government to do the right thing.

I love that mentality, although I have no idea how it would work (logistically, etc.).

I don't think government has the people's best interest either. An immigration reform is a clear example of that. Most Americans want that and recognize the urgency of it and yet nothing has been done yet due to the elections.

 

[kathylove]

I do agreee that kids should not suffer for their parents' mistakes...

even though, of course, that happens all of the time. And I do think that education and healthcare, in an ideal world, would be available to all. But I have not been able to afford health insurance for many years now - it is just out of my financial ability. I just have to hope that we both stay healthy. And our society has not been able to do A LOT of things that we REALLY should be doing, and are the right thing to do, especially with education, health, and housing. So we just have to prioritize and decide which of those items are most important, and whether we can afford to educate and provide health care for all of the kids, legal or not. (I consider education and healthcare to go hand in hand, and that is why I discuss them together). If we do that, it means something else must be moved further down the priority list, and won't get done. Which items will we sacrifice?

Of course, if all services were provided only to documented residents (except emergency services), and employers really did have to hire only documented workers, then the problem would mostly solve itself without much more government intervention. But that is WAY too simple of a solution, I am afraid.

 

[kathylove]

"I love that mentality, although I have no idea how it would work (logistically, etc.). "

My own small plans, with my very meager income since this recession (depression, or whatever!):

I will try to sell our "too large" place that we can't afford anymore, and buy a much smaller, more affordable place in Az, maybe with my brother. It will be cheaper and older, but with enough space to grow vegetables, fruit trees, and have a few chickens. If I can swing it, there will be some solar panels on the roof. My brother is into hunting, and we will share what we each produce with each other. Hubby and my brother's good friend are both into DIY projects, and between several of us who will live within bike riding distance of each other, will do whatever we can to help each other if things get really bad. Remember that old saying "Hope for the best, but prepare for the worst"? That is what I have been thinking about the past few years.

If you still have a good job, you might think about doing even more than I am currently able to do, to protect your own family and friends in case things don't go well.

 

[wstphal]

Kathy, stay in touch. I have a decent job that glues me down in my current location, but if the fecal matter hits the ventilatory machinery, that could change & I have skills that might contribute to your plans. Seriously.